Connect with us
Including Falcon Heavy's two side boosters, SpaceX has successfully completed an array of land-based recoveries in the last four months, but not a single landing on a drone ship. (SpaceX) Including Falcon Heavy's two side boosters, SpaceX has successfully completed an array of land-based recoveries in the last four months, but not a single landing on a drone ship. (SpaceX)

News

How SpaceX Falcon Heavy undercuts its competition three-fold

Published

on

Following the stunningly successful debut of SpaceX’s giant Falcon Heavy rocket, the spaceflight fan community and industry have been abuzz with attempts to estimate Falcon Heavy’s true price as an expendable or partially expendable launch vehicle. Thankfully, CEO Elon Musk appears to have been interested enough to fill in the knowledge gaps concerning the rocket’s full range of prices and took to Twitter to answer several questions.

Among several other intriguing comments that I will cover later on, Musk revealed that a fully expendable Falcon Heavy would cost approximately $150 million, while a partially expendable FH would sport 90% of the performance while expending the center stage and landing the side boosters at sea rather than on land. In that latter mode of operation, a Falcon Heavy launch would cost about $95 million, whereas unlocking the final 10% of performance with a fully expandable configuration would be priced around $150 million. While $90-150 million is undeniably a huge amount of cash in any sense, Falcon Heavy delivers far more performance for multiple times less than the available competition.

The only real competition for Falcon Heavy is the United Launch Alliance’s (ULA) Delta IV Heavy rocket, a triple-core launch vehicle with nine total launches under its belt since its 2004 debut. Aside from one test launch for NASA, all of DIVH’s operational flights have been tasked with launching uniquely heavy military payloads to uniquely high orbits – both of which require an exceptionally capable rocket. Designed as a fully expendable vehicle, ULA’s Heavy is capable of launching ~29,000 kg to low Earth orbit (LEO) and ~14,000 kg to geostationary transfer orbit (GTO), whereas the fully reusable Falcon Heavy has a max payload of about 23,000 kg to LEO and 8,000 kg to GTO.

However, if Musk’s claim of 10% performance loss as a partially expendable launcher holds true, the story changes quite a bit. In its fully expendable configuration (call it the Delta IV Heavy config), Falcon Heavy is a beast of a rocket, quoted at ~64,000 kg to LEO and 26,700 kg to GTO. Subtract 10-25%, and Falcon Heavy still trounces the Delta rocket, all while costing well under $150 million, and probably closer to $100 million. According to a late-2017 report from the US Government Accountability Office, Delta IV Heavy costs as much as $400 million per launch, although ULA CEO Tory Bruno responded to Musk’s claim of $400-600 million earlier this morning with a figure of $350 million for the rocket.

Such a high price is not exceptionally surprising, if only for the fact that Delta IV Heavy launches as infrequently as it does. With an average cadence of one launch every 18 months or 1.5 years, the technical expertise and facilities required to design, build, and operate the DIVH must remain employed regardless of whether the rocket launches. Although Delta was previously a family of rockets, thus enabling some of its designers and builders to cross-populate, the final non-Heavy Delta launch occurred just a handful of weeks ago. Short of layoffs, this means that ULA’s Delta expertise are now solely working to build and operate a rocket with approximately seven launches scheduled between 2018 and 2023 – in short, $400 million is quite plausibly on the low end of the rocket’s actual cost, backend included. Both ULA and the Department of Defense are aware, however, that Delta IV Heavy is the only rocket currently capable of launching some of the missions desired and required by the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), and are thus at least partially willing to swallow the vehicle’s high cost. SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy is bound to introduce some much-needed competition into the stagnant market after its highly successful introduction, but it will likely be a year or more before the new rocket is certified to launch the same highly sensitive and expensive payloads as ULA’s Delta IV Heavy.

How are SpaceX’s prices so low?

Still, this does not answer the “how” of SpaceX’s prices. What can even begin to explain Delta IV Heavy’s 200-400% premium over Falcon Heavy? The best answer to this crucial question was by no coincidence also one of the main reasons that Elon Musk created SpaceX. From the very beginning, SpaceX pursued a slim and flexible organizational structure, prioritized hiring brilliant and motivated engineers with hands-on experience, and encouraged the practice of thinking from first principles. Dolly Singh, head of SpaceX’s talent acquisition in the mid-2000s, described the rocket startup’s atmosphere like so:

We searched for candidates with a proven history of building and breaking things…candidates who had been tinkering with hardware systems for years…I knew the people who filled my open positions would be put to the test every day and would be asked to meet heretofore impossible targets. We looked for people with a history of defeating the odds, who had made careers of overcoming obstacles.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BVarZZSgfIP/

Advertisement

Birds of an organizational feather

In essence, this organizational philosophy has led SpaceX to become vertically integrated to the extent that is effective without comparison in the global aerospace industry. Vertical integration is a term used to describe the practice of bringing aspects of development and manufacturing in-house, whereas a company not attempting to integrate vertically would instead contract and subcontract out their design and manufacturing needs wherever possible. Musk is hard set on this philosophy: if SpaceX can do it in-house more cheaply than a contractor, they will become their own supplier. Companies like ULA – a cooperation between Lockheed Martin and Boeing – have the better part of a century of experience as heavyweights in the US military-industrial complex, a relationship that has quite literally changed processes of acquisition and created alternate realities of pricing.

Thick with armies of lobbyists, those military-industrial complex titans have help to direct the US down a path that has solidified truly insane concepts as the status quo. A cost-plus contracting framework almost universally applied in the procurement of military technology means that companies are nearly awarded for delays and cost overruns. Possibly even more absurd, the euphemistic strategy of “concurrency” espoused by those same titans has somehow convinced the upper echelons of US defense procurement that it is a good and preferable strategy to fully fund and build technologies en mass before any testing has been. Unsurprisingly, these two philosophies have led to years of delays and huge cost overruns as contractors and their subcontractors are forced to repair or modify extremely complex technological systems once bugs and problems are inevitably discovered down the road. The F-35 Lightning II – developed by Lockheed Martin – is perhaps the most famous example with near-weekly tales of abject failure – gun systems that are years late and inaccurate to the point of uselessness, extremely buggy and flawed software that the jet literally cannot function without, an oxygen system that frequently gives its pilots hypoxia and grounds the entire F-35 fleet, among dozens of other incredible missteps – and all for the most expensive fighter aircraft yet developed in the US. Tyler Rogoway, one of the best practicing defense journalists, has covered the debacle of concurrency and cost-plus contracting for many years and is a recommended read for anyone interested in the above industries.

Now, back to spaceflight…

Parting from this partial diversion, the purpose of this brief history of military procurement is to provide some level of context as to why NASA and its spaceflight contractors act as they do, where they derived their organizational structures and philosophies, and why SpaceX is different.

Famously, a NASA study in 2010 estimated the cost of SpaceX’s Falcon 9 development to be approximately $4 billion under variables representative of NASA’s own R&D and engineering culture, or $1.7 billion using a more commercial, fixed-cost strategy. When SpaceX offered to cooperate with the addition of their internal data on Falcon 9’s cost, the same model’s estimate plummeted to less than $600 million, representing a truly extraordinary overestimate of SpaceX’s development costs, while SpaceX’s data showed approximately $300 million of investment in the first version of Falcon 9. Simply put, NASA’s cost estimates were off by more than an order of magnitude (PDF) – SpaceX successfully developed an unprecedented orbital-class rocket for mere pennies to NASA’s dollar.

Famously, a NASA study in 2010 estimated the cost of SpaceX’s Falcon 9 development to be approximately $4 billion, while SpaceX’s own data showed approximately $300 million of investment in the first version of Falcon 9. Simply put, NASA’s cost estimates were off by more than an order of magnitude.

More recently, Elon Musk has stated that SpaceX invested $1 billion or more in the development of reusability for Falcon 9, and this large investment can almost entirely explain why Falcon 9’s pricing has remained essentially unchanged over its seven years of life, even if it was already the cheapest rocket in its performance class. Despite the recent introduction and rapid routinization of operational reuse, SpaceX has not publicly changed the launch price from its $62 million base. Although there have been slight acknowledgments of small discounts from customers flying on reused boosters, the general theme is that reused rockets have not meaningfully lowered the cost of purchasing a launch. In practice, the cost of refurbishment and reuse of the first several Falcon 9 boosters was likely on par with the cost of a new booster, but the real reason for the lack of magnitudes of cost reduction lies in SpaceX’s desire to recoup some or all of the capital it invested in reusability. As the company matures its reuse expertise, the cost can be expected to plummet – Cargo Dragon’s reuse, for example, reportedly saved SpaceX 50% of the cost of a new capsule, and Falcon 9 is almost certainly far easier and thus cheaper to refurbish and refly.

Advertisement

While payload fairings have turned out to be harder to recover than anticipated and Falcon 9’s second stage is likely to remain expendable for the foreseeable future, those components only comprise about 30% of the rocket’s price. If SpaceX can cut the cost of reuse to maybe 10-20% of the cost of a new booster, the remaining 30-60% of a new launch’s $62 million translates to approximately $20-35 million of profit for each reused launch. If, say, the company aims to fly flight-proven boosters on half of their launches in 2018, that translates into as many as 15 launches and as much as $500 million – or half of the $1 billion investment – recouped in a single year. With the introduction of Falcon 9 Block 5 in a few months, SpaceX will soon be flying an iteration of their workhorse rocket that is far faster, easier, and cost-effective to reuse. Ultimately, depending on how much of their initial investment SpaceX intends to recover, the huge profit margins they can derive from reuse could be redirected to drastic price cuts for the customer. More realistically, the company will likely lower its prices enough to ensure that their launch business is brutally competitive, and thus use those profit margins to begin heavily investing in BFR (Big F. Rocket), BFS (Big F. Spaceship), and the company’s loftier interplanetary goals more generally.

In fact, given that SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell has quite consistently targeted early 2019 for the beginning of prototype BFS testing, SpaceX is probably already putting a significant proportion of their profits into Mars-focused R&D. As 2018 progresses, barring any unseen speed bumps, the funds available to SpaceX are bound to explode, and huge progress will likely begin to be made on actual hardware intended to enable colonies on the Moon and Mars.

Follow along live as launch photographer Tom Cross and I cover these exciting proceedings as close to live as possible.

Advertisement

Teslarati   –   Instagram Twitter

Tom CrossTwitter

Eric Ralph Twitter

 

Advertisement

Eric Ralph is Teslarati's senior spaceflight reporter and has been covering the industry in some capacity for almost half a decade, largely spurred in 2016 by a trip to Mexico to watch Elon Musk reveal SpaceX's plans for Mars in person. Aside from spreading interest and excitement about spaceflight far and wide, his primary goal is to cover humanity's ongoing efforts to expand beyond Earth to the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.

Advertisement
Comments

Elon Musk

Elon Musk confirms awesome new features at Tesla Diner Supercharger

More details continue to be revealed about the Tesla Supercharger Diner as its opening seems to be imminent.

Published

on

Credit: Brad Goldberg (via Sawyer Merritt on X)

Elon Musk has confirmed a few new features that will be present at the Tesla Diner Supercharger in Los Angeles.

Musk confirmed these two new details as he revealed he recently ate at the Supercharger Diner. We also recently confirmed a few menu items as a soft launch has already occurred, and a public launch date appears to be within reach.

The new features were revealed by Tesla Joy on X. We shared the details, and Musk confirmed that these are, in fact, features of the Diner that Tesla owners will be able to enjoy.

Tesla reveals key detail of Supercharger Diner, but it’s bigger than you think

The Diner is not exclusive to Tesla owners, but these two features do require a Tesla for compatibility purposes.

Advertisement

Order Food from Your Car

As you pull into the Supercharger Diner, you can order any food item you want, including burgers, wings, fries, shakes, cookies, and more, directly from your vehicle.

A prompt will likely appear that will open a menu to the Supercharger Diner, allowing you to order food. An employee will bring the food out, that is, if Tesla decides to continue with a true and traditional 50s diner theme.

We get it, it’s not a groundbreaking feature. It’s still cool, convenient, and another advantage to visit the diner as a Tesla owner.

Movie Screen Audio Will Sync to Your Tesla

There are two massive movie screens that will play various entertainment options during your visit to the Supercharger Diner. There have been movie clips and even SpaceX launch highlights playing during recent drone flyovers at the location on Santa Monica Boulevard.

Instead of having to open your windows to hear the content on the screen, it will instead sync the audio and play directly in your vehicle through your car stereo speakers.

Advertisement

The Supercharger Diner has also appeared on the Tesla app for the first time, and is currently showing 80 stalls at the location:

Although the stalls are not yet active, the culmination of all the details we’ve learned over the past week about the Diner only points to one thing: an imminent grand opening.

Tesla has not yet confirmed a date for the Supercharger Diner’s opening, and Los Angeles building and construction permits also do not state a specific target date for opening.

It seems as if Tesla will reveal the date itself, potentially in the coming week, as it will report earnings on Wednesday, July 23.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Tesla Supercharger Diner food menu gets a sneak peek as construction closes out

What are you ordering at the Tesla Diner?

Published

on

Credit: BradGoldbergMD | X

The Tesla Supercharger Diner in Los Angeles is nearing completion as construction appears to be winding down significantly. However, the more minor details, such as what the company will serve at its 50s-style diner for food, are starting to be revealed.

Tesla’s Supercharger Diner is set to open soon, seven years after CEO Elon Musk first drafted the idea in a post on X in 2018. Musk has largely come through on most of what he envisioned for the project: the diner, the massive movie screens, and the intended vibe are all present, thanks to the aerial and ground footage shared on social media.

We already know the Diner will be open 24/7, based on decals placed on the front door of the restaurant that were shared earlier this week. We assume that Tesla Optimus will come into play for these long and uninterrupted hours.

The Tesla Diner is basically finished—here’s what it looks like

As far as the food, Tesla does have an email also printed on the front door of the Diner, but we did not receive any response back (yet) about what cuisine it will be offering. We figured it would be nothing fancy and it would be typical diner staples: burgers, fries, wings, milkshakes, etc.

Advertisement

According to pictures taken by @Tesla_lighting_, which were shared by Not a Tesla App, the food will be just that: quick and affordable meals that diners do well. It’s nothing crazy, just typical staples you’d find at any diner, just with a Tesla twist:

As the food menu is finalized, we will be sure to share any details Tesla provides, including a full list of what will be served and its prices.

Additionally, the entire property appears to be nearing its final construction stages, and it seems it may even be nearing completion. The movie screens are already up and showing videos of things like SpaceX launches.

Advertisement

There are many cars already using the Superchargers at the restaurant, and employees inside the facility look to be putting the finishing touches on the interior.

It’s almost reminiscent of a Tesla version of a Buc-ee’s, a southern staple convenience store that offers much more than a traditional gas station. Of course, Tesla’s version is futuristic and more catered to the company’s image, but the idea is the same.

Advertisement

It’s a one-stop shop for anything you’d need to recharge as a Tesla owner. Los Angeles building permits have not yet revealed the date for the restaurant’s initial operation, but Tesla may have its eye on a target date that will likely be announced during next week’s Earnings Call.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla’s longer Model Y did not scale back requests for this vehicle type from fans

Tesla fans are happy with the new Model Y, but they’re still vocal about the need for something else.

Published

on

Credit: AlwinArt/Twitter

Tesla launched a slightly longer version of the Model Y all-electric crossover in China, and with it being extremely likely that the vehicle will make its way to other markets, including the United States, fans are still looking for something more.

The new Model Y L in China boasts a slightly larger wheelbase than its original version, giving slightly more interior room with a sixth seat, thanks to a third row.

Tesla exec hints at useful and potentially killer Model Y L feature

Tesla has said throughout the past year that it would focus on developing its affordable, compact models, which were set to begin production in the first half of the year. The company has not indicated whether it met that timeline or not, but many are hoping to see unveilings of those designs potentially during the Q3 earnings call.

However, the modifications to the Model Y, which have not yet been officially announced for any markets outside of China, still don’t seem to be what owners and fans are looking forward to. Instead, they are hoping for something larger.

Advertisement

A few months ago, I reported on the overall consensus within the Tesla community that the company needs a full-size SUV, minivan, or even a cargo van that would be ideal for camping or business use.

Tesla is missing one type of vehicle in its lineup and fans want it fast

That mentality still seems very present amongst fans and owners, who state that a full-size SUV with enough seating for a larger family, more capability in terms of cargo space for camping or business operation, and something to compete with gas cars like the Chevrolet Tahoe, Ford Expedition, or electric ones like the Volkswagen ID.BUZZ.

We asked the question on X, and Tesla fans were nearly unanimously in support of a larger SUV or minivan-type vehicle for the company’s lineup:

Here’s what some of the respondents said:

Tesla is certainly aware that many of its owners would like the company to develop something larger that competes with the large SUVs on the market.

However, it has not stated that anything like that is in the current plans for future vehicles, as it has made a concerted effort to develop Robotaxi alongside the affordable, compact models that it claims are in development.

It has already unveiled the Robovan, a people-mover that can seat up to 20 passengers in a lounge-like interior.

The Robovan will be completely driverless, so it’s unlikely we will see it before the release of a fully autonomous Full Self-Driving suite from Tesla.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending